anarchy Anarchy does not mean "no rules", it means (translated literally from Ancient Greek) "no rul ers". We've got the opposite problem; rulers exist, the rules do not (for the rulers, at least) I beg to differ regarding my perception of the world governance situation - whether that be rules or rulers.. it does not matter to the point that I was making, and accordingly, I stand on my earlier comments. In essence, my earlier point was suggesting that there is a lack of world governance, and therefore, a kind of anarchy in any attempt to suppress bitcoin and therefore bitcoin is going to be able to profit from some of this lack of coordination.. in which, even if some national or local governments attempt to ban bitcoin, these various forces are too disjointed and conflicting, and accordingly, bitcoin is going to become stronger and stronger, even if some national governments attempt to take various actions against it. |
|
|
|
Forked-tongue lying Stolfi is back to spread his particularly toxic brand of divisive misinformation I see ... not enough corruption in Brazil to keep the anti-ponzi buster busy? [ ... ] Someone needs to inform the Brazialian tax-payers how much time an academic on their payroll is spending on internet forums spreading lies for banksters.
Curious that you say that, since the Brazilian bankers are among the biggest corrupters here, and they have been spear-heading the move to get Dilma impeached -- because she dared to try lowering the prime interest rate, that defines how much of taxpayers money will go to them banks. (It was ~60% last time I checked.) The world seems to be filled with all kinds of contradictions, and your clarification here regarding the inside coup in Brazil (the impeachment), Jorge, shows how dangerous it tends to be when we oversimplify about some situation in which we are lacking knowledge regarding some of the true underlying and unpublished motives. |
|
|
|
[Hard forks] are more dangerous if there is disagreement regarding their implementation, and they are more dangerous if they attempt to change bitcoin's governance in order to make changes (consensus rules) easier to achieve.
Bitcoin cannot have a "governance". If you do not understand that, then you don't understand the only thing that justifies its existence. You are being amazingly selective with your framing of the situation. At the heart, both XT and Classic were aimed at changing governance, and yes, we are lucky, in some sense, that various core supporters opposed those attempts at change of governance - even when we were being mislead into believing that there was some kind of a technical problem with bitcoin. So, in the end, in some kind of odd way, you ended up being correct that there is some kind of lack of governance in bitcoin... or at least, currently, it seems to be very difficult for a small group to either take it over or to change the way it works.... and that seems to be a feature rather than a bug... but also what makes bitcoin so valuable.... So, you better go buy some now, while prices are in the three digits. You keep going back over the point to argue against something that is not controverted, and it does not really matter, at this point how complicated it is, etc. etc.. because it is already in the pipeline to be implemented ...
I have no illusions of stopping SegWit. It is quite obvious already that no amount of technical argument from us idiots will change Greg Maxwell's mind once he made it up.  You are again engaging in mischaracterizations to attempt to personalize these kinds of matters. In essence, can't you recognize that you are contradicting yourself from one sentence to another. In one sentence, you acknowledge that bitcoin cannot have governance (maybe in essence recognizing that bitcoin has a form of decentralized existence), and then in the next sentence, you are suggesting that some person has some kind of undue influence... The former is correct (no one person or entity controls bitcoin), and that is a feature, not a bug. Thank you bitcoin, and thank you Satoshi.  FUCD
Er, I must have slept through that too. What is the "C" in "FUCD"? I adopted this usage from someone else, more because of the overall sound of it, rather than the fact that it could be a bit redundant. C = concern. hahahaha... sounds a bit more descriptive, when put together..., no?  |
|
|
|
Oh bad luck, gentlemen.
I'm now entering a new phase: concern about what the dying bankster behemoth will come up with next to bring Bitcoin down. It's possible that brute force is all they've got left, which is possibly bad news in the short term, despite the potential for plenty of corresponding publicity. And the timing seems a little extraordinary, events around the world impacting the legacy financial system are beginning to look like they are coming to the boil.
I feel that it's difficult for state actors to coordinate an attack on bitcoin internationally. Events like Venzeula arresting miners and the Russian parliament contemplating making bitcoin illegal haven't moved the markets much. Their best bet is still slowly destroying confidence in bitcoin (death by 1000 papercuts), and then perhaps creating a panic when the setting is just right. Fortunately the community has weathered a few such panics already. I think that various government intentions to perpetuate a form of governmental anarchy on the international level has caused them to be a victim of their own success.... |
|
|
|
Correction: " Maxwell noted, “At least five companies as well as many individuals are actively developing Lightning, and much of the code and development is open in a similar model to Bitcoin.” Please list the "5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network" here: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. That's a good point newbie.... Surely it would be nice to get more specificity rather than blanket statements. ... Your history and actions suggest otherwise however and it is pretty easy to verify you get sadistic pleasure off of attacking bitcoin on the buttcoin subreddit. Isn't this what you Bitcoin cognoscenti call ad hominem? Why do you find it so difficult to stick to the issues without dragging in butthurt & conspiracy theories? I doubt that anti-Stolfi posters are engaging in unwarranted ad hominem attacks, especially when it comes to Stolfi. He genuinely tends to deserve a large number of attacks because purposefully and even sometimes admittedly, he has been in the business of spreading disinformation regarding bitcoin.... Every once in a while Stolfi makes some decent points (just like a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but really overall, he is purposefully aimed at deceiving and misleading in respect to bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit?
My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).
So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit?
How could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?
There is no known obvious flaw in SegWit, even implemented as soft fork with Luke's script hack (as Blockstream is doing). It does fix those malleability problems. The other alleged benefits are small: it saves a little bandwidth for simple clients (only for them; not for full nodes) and may give a little more block space (depending on how many clients adopt the new format). Who fucking cares how much value it adds? The main point is that seg wit is not controverted by any significant player. There are people whining about seg wit, but in the end, no one of significance disagrees with its implementation, so therefore, it can be implemented as a softfork. Regarding value and how much it adds to blockchain capacity, we will see about that, once it is implemented. Currently, there is a lot of speculation about how much it will add and whether it is enough, and in that regard, it seems very reasonable to let it go live (since it is not controverted), and then to determine thereafter whether additional measures will need to be taken in order to accomplish additional objectives (such as further increasing capacity). SegWit is just a disgusting hack. The same benefits could (should) have been implemented in a cleaner way, with a hard fork, without having to change the format of blocks.
Could have, should have, so what!!!! no one really disagrees about seg wit.. so why continue to make it an issue, except for the purpose of spreading FUCD. The point is it is already done.. been agreed to and in the process of going live... the only likely way of stopping seg wit from going live is if there is some kind of significant problem that is discovered before it actually goes live.. so why continue to cry over spillt milk? I have seen complaints from wallet developers about the extent of changes that it will require to their code. Others have complained about the huge risk of having such a pervasive change (more than 500 lines of code, last I read) made to the core of the protocol, with relatively little critical review, and under such pressure. (Testing can reveal accidental flaws; but one will not know about security flaws until it is implemented, and malicious hackers try to break it.)
Others are unhappy that Blockstream is putting so much effort into deploying SegWit, instead of other things like fast block propagation. The reason for the hurry is that SegWit is needed for the LN (or some other thing that Blockstream is planning and did not tell).
OK??? Besides a bunch of whiners on reddit or some other bitcoin forum, who of significance is actually opposed in any meaningful way to seg wit? Name someone, or cite to their objections. As far as I know, there is no meaningful disagreement to the implementation of seg wit, except for insignificant whiners in various bitcoin forums. There is no one with a meaningful position in bitcoin, either merchants, developers or miners who are voicing any meaningful objection to seg wit. They may be complaining about other things, such as also wanting to get a hard increase in the limit, but those are convoluted arguments, and in the end, there is no meaningful objection to seg wit - if so show who that is.
Hard forks are not more dangerous than soft-forks. One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users.
They are more dangerous if there is disagreement regarding their implementation, and they are more dangerous if they attempt to change bitcoin's governance in order to make changes (consensus rules) easier to achieve.
.......
Besides, there will be some hard fork in the future, for other reasons (such as increasing the min block size). The alternative malleability fix (that does not require the split-block format) could be deployed in the same hard fork.
Yes, likely there will be some hardforks in the future, and probably those hardforks will be regarding non-controverted topics (and likely have a very large consensus, such as much more than 95%).
SegWit makes bitcoin more complicated: the split blocks and transactions, Luke's script hack, the fee formulas, etc.
Increasing the complexity of the protocol makes it harder to explain and master (many docs will have to be edited) and harder to maintain. Increased complexity means that fewer people will qualify to maintain the code, and to write applications that depend on the format.
You keep going back over the point to argue against something that is not controverted, and it does not really matter, at this point how complicated it is, etc. etc.. because it is already in the pipeline to be implemented, and you better come up with some more major flaws in order to cause a reverse of this course of action. So, you can whine and whine and whine, but it is really not very productive because the substance of your whining does not rise to a high enough level to be material enough to change what's already in the works. On the other hand, if you were working on solutions to various problems, rather than just whining about the existence of problems, then that would likely be more productive towards the dialogue - rather than attempting to cause confusion amongst people (but, when by definition you are in the business of spreading FUCD, then I suppose you are not really capable (or you won't get paid) of more meaningful kinds of contributions to the discussion). |
|
|
|
With a soft-fork, users do not have this choice. Even if 45% of the miners hate the change to the
rules, they cannot force a split of the chain, and must adopt it. The users will have to accept it too,
whether they are aware of it or not.
Users never have to accept it and can instantly veto any SF or HF introduced by the miners simply through inaction. That is the point: users who do nothing automatically accept any soft-fork type of change, even if they are unaware of it. Yes... that is the point... so long as the change does not undermine the currency (store of value) in any way, then it can be made without any significant objections from users. Many technical changes are going to result in no meaningful perceived change.. but if there were an attempt to change something fundamental, such as the number of total coins (or the governance to allow for easy take overs), then users may well decide to vote with their feet.
Take my favorite example: postpone the next halving by 2 years, but then shorten the halving time to be every 2 years instead of every 4. This change would not increase the 21 million limit; it would keep the current rate of inflation until 2018, but the inflation would drop much faster after 2020, so that issuance would be complete in half the original time.
Would this change be "good" or "bad"? All the miners should love the idea, since it postpones the 50% drop of revenue next July. Holders who were hoping to cash out in 2019 may hate it, but those with a longer outlook may love it. And the miners could point out that, without that change, many of them would have to shut down, which would cause the hashrate to drop, which would be bad for bitcoin's security and very bad for its image...
If this scenario were to occur (which is highly speculative - and likely would not occur), this kind of change is a significant material alteration of the value that would likely cause users to lose confidence in the value of the currency (storage of value) because fundamentally (in the short term) it has just been manipulated by a small segment of the population... again, this is really speculative, very unlikely that any good intended group would attempt such, and because of it's high degree of improbability, not really worthy of an indepth discussion. |
|
|
|
What are the origins of segwit? Was it long proposed as a nice idea by multiple people or did it arrive out of nowhere from a single source and tickle everyone pink?
SegWit was presented by Blockstream's Pieter Wuille to the world at the end of the second Bitcoin Stalling conference in Hong Kong. The video of his talk should be on YouTube. Apparently it was a surprise to most people there, except Blockstream folks of course. Indeed I would say that Blockstream planned the conferences to be just a stage for the SegWit announcement. According to Pieter himself, he thought of SegWit some time ago, but put it aside because he believed that it would require a hard fork. But then Luke Dash Jr. found a way to make SegWit into a soft-fork type of change, by using a script hack and redefining one of the NOP opcodes. That made it possible to deploy it in Blockstream's favorite "stealth mode". (That is, the change is effective as soon as a miner majority adopts it, whether full nodes, users, and businesses like it or not.) AFAIK, the only significant improvement that SegWit brings is to fix various malleability problems in one go. Even that benefit could be obtained much more cleanly by other means, without changing the block and transaction format; but this cleaner solution would require a hard fork, and also the discarding of Pieter and Luke's ingenious hack -- so obviously it could not happen. I haven't heard of the "fraud proofs" in a while. In the initial description, they seemed to be more "hints" than "proofs"; and it was never clear how they would be used, and for what. One interesting "benefit" of SegWit was to make people aware that soft forks are actually more dangerous than hard forks. With SegWit's "extension record" trick, a soft fork can achieve many of the taboo changes that were thought to require a hard fork; such as increasing the block reward (and therefore the 21 million issuance cap) or confiscating coins. As soft forks, those changes would require only the agreement of a mining majority, without the consent of the rest of the community. However, for that same reason, there is nothing that the community or the developers can do to prevent non-consensual soft forks. I find your above post a bit confusing. Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit? My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic). So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit? In other words, if there is no meaningful opposition (besides some whining voices of non-users or even users), then it seems that a softfork would be preferable to a hardfork, no? In other words, are you whining for a hardfork when a hardfork is not actually necessary? how could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit? |
|
|
|
All over Twitter, Reddit, this forum...I'm seeing people left and right turning against Gavin. This is the most bullish development I've seen in bitcoin for years now! I can hardly contain my excitement. Yeah, Gavin appears as very normal, articulate and even well-intended in respect to the well-being of bitcoin; however, in retrospect, when we see how his various proposals (XT and Classic) seemed to have been aimed at attempts to undermine bitcoin and to divide the bitcoin community (to the extent that there is such a community), it becomes easier to feel resentment towards him (as if he should have known better). |
|
|
|
It seems that Bitcoin is going to be quite a bit stronger after this particular fight. I recall several months ago, possibly in July or August 2015 when the various XT and Classic proponents were initially setting forth various blocksize limit increase proposals, that were really coups in disquise of some supposed necessary technical fix. Some of us were likely caught off guard by the initial proposals because on their face they seemed "reasonable." In some sense, we are lucky that many of the pushers of this XT/Classic agenda were not crafty enough to tricking various core developers or miners into believing that either the unnecessary technical fix was needed or that a change in Bitcoin's governance would be a good thing. Likely core supporters and a variety of other folks in the community are more aware now of some of these kinds of coup potentials (which are likely to be attempted again... but maybe enough awareness has been raised to show coup attempts for the phoniness of what they are - which seem to be attempts to undermine bitcoin and to cause it to be easily malleable - which would have taken away from bitcoin's main contributory feature, and that is censorship resistance.......). GO BITCOIN... and to the moon!!!!!! |
|
|
|
The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation. Go figure.  yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS. Your further elaboration makes little to no sense. You are criticizing me for not thinking, but at least I am not cutting and pasting my previous quotes as if that responds to a current post. To attempt to convert this line of discussion into something a bit more relevant to bitcoin prices, I am looking forward to the day in the likely very near future in which bitcoin prices break through your self-described $500 "ceiling." hahahahhahaI can already predict you changing your story when you are obvious going wrong with your lame, ill-conceive, conspiratorial and lacking of insight perspective. I can already anticipate you asserting that you were right all along, even though you are obvious and clearly predicting BTC to be incapable of going passed $500. See more at lame.ztec.ex.miner.com  bring on the $500+ bitcoin.. what you waiting on ?? .. i'm not scared of $500+ bitcoins. bit coin has to break out of the $300 - $500 range eventually ... even if it is next year after the obamaturds is out of wh finally . Your wishy-washiness remains somewhat humorous - except, maybe to the extent that anyone may give any credibility to your various simplified alien conspiracy theories. Maybe your middle name is wishy-washy in that your above post shows that you already are preparing for higher than $500 BTC prices, as if that prediction were within your previous proclamation, which it was not.. While BTC prices were going down, you were adamantly spreading FUCD in order to attempt to get others to believe you.. paid shill? or just retarded? Also, you are ridiculous in putting out any implication that I claim to have any influence over BTC price directions (short or long term). Many of us in these forums have little ability to influence BTC prices, and maybe at this time, 10,000 or more coins would be needed for such, at a minimum... So, I am not going to go ahead and do nothing, besides preparing for $500+ coins. I don't know when such will come, for sure, but it's looking pretty good at the moment, in spite of various FUCD spreading coming from you and some of the other self-serving and apparent negative Nancy persons participating in these forms. If you do not believe me, see more @ # Az-wishywashy-miner.dumb bitcoin still has a flaw that it cannot scale.. you can take that anyway you want to. .. if its fud well too bad.. bitcoin still cannot scale. i have the intelligence to understand and accept this fact, while you on the other hand only have the intelligence to insult people who disagree with you. i think my little seven year old niece can do that and her brain isnt even fully developed yet. once again, it doesnt matter if the price goes up since i am sitting on a pile of coins in cold storage.. if the price were to go lower to a point i feel is a buy then i might buy more. what i am not going to do is sit here an come up with different bullshiat to lie to myself and everyone like you do everyday. 1st) you are the one lying if you keep asserting that bitcoin cannot scale... maybe you are suggesting that it cannot do it the way that you would prefer, but that is a different story 2nd) I do not come out attacking, but only attack after someone, like yourself, comes out with a variety of preposterous ideas, that are likely even asserted on purpose.. because, even you do not seem as dumb as some of the comments that you make. 3rd) from time to time, i have given you the benefit of the doubt, but even you must admit that there is a bit of tension even in your own position (and that is your claim that bitcoin is a failure, while at the same time you are asserting that you are investing in it..)... Anyhow, there is nothing really wrong with having various internal contradictions, because many of us do, including myself.. but I guess my concern with you continues to be that you frequently engage in misleading efforts to paint matters extremely, in black and white, and your approach frequently lacks moderation - because likely you are attempting to be extreme on purpose.... or to convert people over to your way of thinking. juan discovers bitcoins flaw can't scale:  Even your response makes little sense. The ideas therein, if any, do not seem related to previous points made. go figure? |
|
|
|
 (is this ITTT ?) ... for hours on end. Days on end. M o n t h s o n e n d. Must be Hell... Really, it's not that bad. Bitcoin seems to be in a decent place. If we can endure about a year of a down trend, in 2014, and then about 8 months of flat in 2015 (in the $230 price territory), It feels pretty good to be floating in this lower $400s territory, even if it has been a few months. Keep accumulating seems a good plan curing these fairly slow moving times. |
|
|
|
come on tell me how much BTC you got?
[http://nomorecocktails.com/images/Putin2.jpg[/img]
I ain't tellin [/b] At this point, I'm scared to say. What you got, Adam? 50-ish? Or... i'm not rich yet.
I agree generally with Adam's inclination that it is not necessary to reveal quantity of BTC in order to provide meaningful input into the thread (not that Adam has a high meaningful input batting average... ).. ;
In any event, I think it remains good and relevant to bat around our various aspects of our personal holdings, personal strategies... including buying/selling strategies in order to attempt to improve our understanding of our BTC positions in comparison with what others are doing... .
I have come across quite a few people in these BTC forums and also in real life who really seem inclined towards too much risk taking and gambling with their BTC holdings in order to attempt to get rich... Is this Adam? Could be, but I am not going to judge, at this moment.... ...
Nonetheless, when we use BTC as a vehicle towards gambling we become considerably and too much emotionally invested in becoming rich through BTC. .. then we start doing dumb things and even saying (posting) dumb things because prices will not go in the direction that we want/bet.
Frequently, I have to fight back my own inclinations toward gamble through my BTC allocated funds....
For example, yesterday, BTC prices were hovering around the lower $425s.... and the situation seemed really poised towards moving up.. At that point, I was beginning to consider that the odds were in the 80/20 - ish arena that BTC prices were poised towards going up. I began to think that I could make some quickie money, if I bet a bit on green... Accordingly, I took about 30% of my BTC allocated fiat, and I bought at around $425.17. Then for about the next hour, prices went up and down and up and down... and I said, "Shit. That is really stupid of me to buy BTC on the way up when my overall BTC philosophy is to buy on the way up and to sell on the way down, and really at that moment I should have been planning to sell.... but only if the price goes up to meet my sell point... and I said to myself,
"shit!!! what if BTC prices go down from here, and then I am going to be screwed because I am not going to have very much fiat in my BTC fund to buy BTC (because I had just used 30% of those funds to bet on green, rather than saving it in case the outcome is red)..." I reflected that my behavior had been fucking stupid.... for me to take chances with my BTC funds and to be under stress about it... and really, even though the odds had appeared to be 80/20 in favor of Green, there are a fuckload of BTC price manipulators who want us to bet rather than to have a plan (and then those manipulators force BTC prices in the opposite direction).
I said to myself, "fuck, i cannot be gambling with my BTC fiat like that." Thereafter, in the next couple of hours, BTC prices kept bouncing back and forth, and little by little I was able to sell back those BTC that I had bought the $425.25 territory.
Also, even though a few hours later, BTC prices shot up to $430, I had been much relieved to get my BTC portfolio into the proper position of selling on the way up and buying on the way down.. in order that I would not be gambling with my btc allocated funds.... .
So, in essence I believe that many of us have an inclination towards gambling with our BTC allocated monies, even when we attempt to be very diligent, disciplined and cautious about following some kind of a pre-formulated strategy.Either JJG is one of the most strangely committed, excruciatingly tedious troll jobs ever conceived… or he’s all too real folks, your call on which one scares you more. If you believe that I could be a troll, you probably need to look up the definition of troll, newbie. |
|
|
|
come on tell me how much BTC you got?
[http://nomorecocktails.com/images/Putin2.jpg[/img]
I ain't tellin [/b] At this point, I'm scared to say. What you got, Adam? 50-ish? Or... i'm not rich yet. hahahahahaha Chef... I understand you are just trying to get Adam to reveal some additional specifics about his personal position... yet... I agree generally with Adam's inclination that it is not necessary to reveal quantity of BTC in order to provide meaningful input into the thread (not that Adam has a high meaningful input batting average... ).. ; In any event, I think it remains good and relevant to bat around our various aspects of our personal holdings, personal strategies... including buying/selling strategies in order to attempt to improve our understanding of our BTC positions in comparison with what others are doing... . I have come across quite a few people in these BTC forums and also in real life who really seem inclined towards too much risk taking and gambling with their BTC holdings in order to attempt to get rich... Is this Adam? Could be, but I am not going to judge, at this moment.... ... Nonetheless, when we use BTC as a vehicle towards gambling we become considerably and too much emotionally invested in becoming rich through BTC. .. then we start doing dumb things and even saying (posting) dumb things because prices will not go in the direction that we want/bet. Frequently, I have to fight back my own inclinations toward gamble through my BTC allocated funds.... For example, yesterday, BTC prices were hovering around the lower $425s.... and the situation seemed really poised towards moving up.. At that point, I was beginning to consider that the odds were in the 80/20 - ish arena that BTC prices were poised towards going up. I began to think that I could make some quickie money, if I bet a bit on green... Accordingly, I took about 30% of my BTC allocated fiat, and I bought at around $425.17. Then for about the next hour, prices went up and down and up and down... and I said, "Shit. That is really stupid of me to buy BTC on the way up when my overall BTC philosophy is to buy on the way up and to sell on the way down, and really at that moment I should have been planning to sell.... but only if the price goes up to meet my sell point... and I said to myself, "shit!!! what if BTC prices go down from here, and then I am going to be screwed because I am not going to have very much fiat in my BTC fund to buy BTC (because I had just used 30% of those funds to bet on green, rather than saving it in case the outcome is red)..." I reflected that my behavior had been fucking stupid.... for me to take chances with my BTC funds and to be under stress about it... and really, even though the odds had appeared to be 80/20 in favor of Green, there are a fuckload of BTC price manipulators who want us to bet rather than to have a plan (and then those manipulators force BTC prices in the opposite direction). I said to myself, "fuck, i cannot be gambling with my BTC fiat like that." Thereafter, in the next couple of hours, BTC prices kept bouncing back and forth, and little by little I was able to sell back those BTC that I had bought the $425.25 territory. Also, even though a few hours later, BTC prices shot up to $430, I had been much relieved to get my BTC portfolio into the proper position of selling on the way up and buying on the way down.. in order that I would not be gambling with my btc allocated funds.... . So, in essence I believe that many of us have an inclination towards gambling with our BTC allocated monies, even when we attempt to be very diligent, disciplined and cautious about following some kind of a pre-formulated strategy. |
|
|
|
insert garbage spam here
^Click this guy's post history. Every single post is "blah blah bitcoin will crash to 0 any second" for like a year straight while it goes from $200 to $500 instead. Not sure how he isn't banned being the most obvious banking shill spam account on the forum. The banking shill idiots obviously didn't think people can look up their posts to spot them with ease. Obvious tentacle of the lambwhore, same tactic every time it posts. Complete shill I might add. Hahaahhahahahah... Funny that he joined right in the middle of August 2015... right when Bitcoin began it's famous move out of the 2015 $200s rut... and life for BTC has been pretty good since then.... .. except for these various XT/Classic whiners who also claim that bitcoin does not scale... blah blah blah.. let's change governance... Yeah, right... |
|
|
|
The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation. Go figure. yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS. Your further elaboration makes little to no sense. You are criticizing me for not thinking, but at least I am not cutting and pasting my previous quotes as if that responds to a current post. To attempt to convert this line of discussion into something a bit more relevant to bitcoin prices, I am looking forward to the day in the likely very near future in which bitcoin prices break through your self-described $500 "ceiling." hahahahhahaI can already predict you changing your story when you are obvious going wrong with your lame, ill-conceive, conspiratorial and lacking of insight perspective. I can already anticipate you asserting that you were right all along, even though you are obvious and clearly predicting BTC to be incapable of going passed $500. See more at lame.ztec.ex.miner.com bring on the $500+ bitcoin.. what you waiting on ?? .. i'm not scared of $500+ bitcoins. bit coin has to break out of the $300 - $500 range eventually ... even if it is next year after the obamaturds is out of wh finally . Your wishy-washiness remains somewhat humorous - except, maybe to the extent that anyone may give any credibility to your various simplified alien conspiracy theories. Maybe your middle name is wishy-washy in that your above post shows that you already are preparing for higher than $500 BTC prices, as if that prediction were within your previous proclamation, which it was not.. While BTC prices were going down, you were adamantly spreading FUCD in order to attempt to get others to believe you.. paid shill? or just retarded? Also, you are ridiculous in putting out any implication that I claim to have any influence over BTC price directions (short or long term). Many of us in these forums have little ability to influence BTC prices, and maybe at this time, 10,000 or more coins would be needed for such, at a minimum... So, I am not going to go ahead and do nothing, besides preparing for $500+ coins. I don't know when such will come, for sure, but it's looking pretty good at the moment, in spite of various FUCD spreading coming from you and some of the other self-serving and apparent negative Nancy persons participating in these forms. If you do not believe me, see more @ # Az-wishywashy-miner.dumb bitcoin still has a flaw that it cannot scale.. you can take that anyway you want to. .. if its fud well too bad.. bitcoin still cannot scale. i have the intelligence to understand and accept this fact, while you on the other hand only have the intelligence to insult people who disagree with you. i think my little seven year old niece can do that and her brain isnt even fully developed yet. once again, it doesnt matter if the price goes up since i am sitting on a pile of coins in cold storage.. if the price were to go lower to a point i feel is a buy then i might buy more. what i am not going to do is sit here an come up with different bullshiat to lie to myself and everyone like you do everyday. 1st) you are the one lying if you keep asserting that bitcoin cannot scale... maybe you are suggesting that it cannot do it the way that you would prefer, but that is a different story 2nd) I do not come out attacking, but only attack after someone, like yourself, comes out with a variety of preposterous ideas, that are likely even asserted on purpose.. because, even you do not seem as dumb as some of the comments that you make. 3rd) from time to time, i have given you the benefit of the doubt, but even you must admit that there is a bit of tension even in your own position (and that is your claim that bitcoin is a failure, while at the same time you are asserting that you are investing in it..)... Anyhow, there is nothing really wrong with having various internal contradictions, because many of us do, including myself.. but I guess my concern with you continues to be that you frequently engage in misleading efforts to paint matters extremely, in black and white, and your approach frequently lacks moderation - because likely you are attempting to be extreme on purpose.... or to convert people over to your way of thinking. |
|
|
|
The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation. Go figure. yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS. Your further elaboration makes little to no sense. You are criticizing me for not thinking, but at least I am not cutting and pasting my previous quotes as if that responds to a current post. To attempt to convert this line of discussion into something a bit more relevant to bitcoin prices, I am looking forward to the day in the likely very near future in which bitcoin prices break through your self-described $500 "ceiling." hahahahhahaI can already predict you changing your story when you are obvious going wrong with your lame, ill-conceive, conspiratorial and lacking of insight perspective. I can already anticipate you asserting that you were right all along, even though you are obvious and clearly predicting BTC to be incapable of going passed $500. See more at lame.ztec.ex.miner.com bring on the $500+ bitcoin.. what you waiting on ?? .. i'm not scared of $500+ bitcoins. bit coin has to break out of the $300 - $500 range eventually ... even if it is next year after the obamaturds is out of wh finally . Your wishy-washiness remains somewhat humorous - except, maybe to the extent that anyone may give any credibility to your various simplified alien conspiracy theories. Maybe your middle name is wishy-washy in that your above post shows that you already are preparing for higher than $500 BTC prices, as if that prediction were within your previous proclamation, which it was not.. While BTC prices were going down, you were adamantly spreading FUCD in order to attempt to get others to believe you.. paid shill? or just retarded? Also, you are ridiculous in putting out any implication that I claim to have any influence over BTC price directions (short or long term). Many of us in these forums have little ability to influence BTC prices, and maybe at this time, 10,000 or more coins would be needed for such, at a minimum... So, I am not going to go ahead and do nothing, besides preparing for $500+ coins. I don't know when such will come, for sure, but it's looking pretty good at the moment, in spite of various FUCD spreading coming from you and some of the other self-serving and apparent negative Nancy persons participating in these forms. If you do not believe me, see more @ # Az-wishywashy-miner.dumb |
|
|
|
hahaha ... someone wants to get in
Or simply doesn't want the price to dip. or wants to pull the wall... after getting some expectations lined up? |
|
|
|
Anybody have a clue why bitcoinwisdom isn't working? (not updating)
Are you talking about the App on the Iphone, or some other thing? For several months, I had noticed that sometimes on the iphone the bitcoinwisdom app does not update right away and you can switch between settings in order to force a loading of an update of the price... I'm not very technical, so I don't know why, but I know that kind of failure to update the price has been happening for me for quite a long time on the iphone app.... and sometimes I switch between bitcoinwisdom and the zeroblock app in order to verify the current price... since the zeroblock app seems to update more quickly. |
|
|
|
The eyes rolling is mutual..... and your cut and paste provides further proof about how retarded you are that you cannot formulate your thoughts in order to apply such thoughts (if any) towards what is going at this moment and in this situation. Go figure. yeah i need reformulate and regurgitate it a third time cuz your synoptic pruning deleted your memory cells used to retrieve the data from the last time i told you this same thing. i'm thinking maybe it is a white matter disconnect is why you can't understand it that you require me to reformulate it for you. the part of your brain that perceives the writing in this forum is not communicating effectively with that part of the brain that actually THINKS. Your further elaboration makes little to no sense. You are criticizing me for not thinking, but at least I am not cutting and pasting my previous quotes as if that responds to a current post. To attempt to convert this line of discussion into something a bit more relevant to bitcoin prices, I am looking forward to the day in the likely very near future in which bitcoin prices break through your self-described $500 "ceiling." hahahahhaha I can already predict you changing your story when you are obvious going wrong with your lame, ill-conceive, conspiratorial and lacking of insight perspective. I can already anticipate you asserting that you were right all along, even though you are obvious and clearly predicting BTC to be incapable of going passed $500. See more at lame.ztec.ex.miner.com |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
